Delhi District Court
Aamir Khan vs . Gulshan & Ors. on 8 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 287/17
FIR No. 573/16
PS Jaitpur
Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors.
Amputation Case
Shri Aamir Ali S/o Shri Hakam,
R/o Village Paharpur, Post Malai,
District Palwal, Haryana121103.
........................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
1. Shri Gulshan S/o Shri Chhajan Singh (Driver)
R/o Village Hasanpur, Teh. Hodal, District Faridabad,
Haryana.
2. Shri Rajesh S/o Shri Syam Lal (Owner)
R/o Tahi Ram Colony, Sham Nagar, Palwal,
Haryana.
3. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
SCO2, 2nd Floor, Sector16, Shopping Complex121007.
.....................Respondents
Initial date of Institution : 06.03.2017 Date of reserving the judgment : 08.05.2017 Date of pronouncement the judgment : 08.05.2017 Judgment:
1. Present claim proceedings were initiated on the basis of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police in respect of injuries suffered by injured/ petitioner Aamir Khan in a road accident.
MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 1 of 17)
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2016 at about 06.30 PM, petitioner was helping in loading of ash in truck bearing registration No. HR730011 at NTPC, New Delhi and the ash was being loaded with the help of hydraulic excavator L&T Komatsu PC200 which was driven by Gulshan Kumar @ Satinder. When petitioner was closing the door of truck in which ash was being loaded, suddenly Gulshan Kumar @ Satinder drove abovesaid excavator in a rash and negligent manner and hit petitioner due to which petitioner sustained injuries in his left hand. After the accident, he was taken to JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi.
3. FIR number 573/16 under Section 279/337 IPC was got registered at PS Jaitpur. Police conducted investigation. During investigation, police seized offending excavator and got it mechanically inspected, gave notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act to owner of offending excavator, seized invoice of offending excavator, seized driving licence of respondent No. 1 and arrested him. On completion of investigation, found respondent No. 1 driver/accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for the commission of offence under Section 279/338 of Indian Penal Code.
4. During proceedings, respondent No. 1 and 2 did not file any reply/ written statement.
5. During proceedings, respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its legal offer for settling the claim of petitioner.
6. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 01.05.2017: (1) Whether the injured received injuries in the accident which took place MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 2 of 17) on 07.10.2016 at 06.30 hours involving machine namely I&T Komaesu PC 200 Avince due to rashness of respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2/owner and insured by respondent No. 3 (insurance company)? OPP (2) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom?
(3) Relief.
7. Perusal of Issue No. 1 shows that date of accident is mentioned as '07.10.2016' whereas correct date of accident is '11.09.2016'. Hence, in Issue No. 1, date of accident shall be read as '11.09.2016'.
8. During proceedings, petitioner was examined for disability. Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/7 issued by the Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital opined that petitioner suffered 20% permanent disability in respect of his left upper limb (amputation). This condition is nonprogressive, not likely to improve. Reassessment is not recommended.
9. During evidence, petitioner Shri Aamir Khan got himself examined as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. copy of his Aadhar Card is Ex. PW1/1, MLC is Ex. PW 1/2, Discharge Summary is collectively Ex. PW1/3, OPD Cards are collectively Ex. PW1/4, medical bills are collectively Ex. PW1/5, Detailed Accident Report is Ex. PW1/6 and Disability Certificate of petitioner is Ex. PW1/7.
10. No other witness was got examined by petitioner.
MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 3 of 17)
11. No evidence has been led by any of the respondents.
12. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue No. 1 (Negligence)
13. PW1 Shri Aamir Khan in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) has deposed that on the date of accident he was helping in loading of ash in truck bearing registration No. HR730011 at NTPC, New Delhi and the ash was being loaded with the help of hydraulic excavator L & T Komatsu PC 200 which was driven by Gulshan Kumar @ Satinder. PW1 has further deposed that when he was closing the door of truck in which ash was being loaded, suddenly Gulshan Kumar @ Satinder drove abovesaid excavator in a rash and negligent manner and hit him due to which he sustained injuries in his left hand. Nothing came in the crossexamination of PW1 which may create doubt on his version regarding the manner of accident. Furthermore, after due investigation, police filed charge sheet against respondent No. 1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/338 IPC.
14. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 4 of 17) judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
15. In view of the above discussions, it is established that petitioner suffered injuries in a road accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation):
16. In injury cases, the claimants are entitled to pecuniary as well as non pecuniary damages. Apex court in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar 2011 (1) SCC 343 held that compensation awarded must be "just compensation" means to the extent possible Tribunal fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position which he/she was having prior to the accident. The person is not only to be compensated for physical injury, but also for loss which he /she suffered as a result of such injury. Apex court in R. D. Hatangadi Vs Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd (1995) 1 SCC 551 held that pecuniary and non pecuniary MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 5 of 17) compensation to be assessed separately. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred, which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non pecuniary damages are those which are not capable of being assessed by arithmetical calculation, however no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the victim, therefore object to compensate such injury is "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate money with the human suffering or personal deprivation. To compute compensation involved some guess work, some hypothetical considerations, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. In Nagppa Vs Gurdayal Singh 2003 (2) SCC 274 Apex court observed that while calculating such damages Tribunal required to have some guess work taking into account the inflation factor.
17. In the light of aforesaid guidelines and parameters, this Tribunal has to assess the compensation to be awarded to the claimant/petitioner.
18. Medical Expenses: PW1 in his affidavit of evidence has stated that after the accident, he was taken to JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi. As per MLC Ex. PW1/2, doctor examining the petitioner after the accident has opined about the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner to be grievous. As per Discharge Summary collectively Ex. PW1/3, petitioner was admitted in JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi on 12.09.2016 and was discharged on 08.09.2016. He was diagnosed to have suffered left hand crush injury with amputation of index and middle finger and fracture of 4 th and 5th MC. He underwent operative procedure for ray amputation of index and middle finger with kwire stabilization of proximal phalanx of ring finger on 12.09.2016 and again undergone operative procedure for groin flap for coverage of raw area on 15.09.2016. At the time of discharge, he was advised to take various MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 6 of 17) medicines and to come for review on 21.09.2016. As per OPD Cards collectively Ex. PW1/4, petitioner went for review on 21.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 05.10.2016, 08.10.2016, 15.10.2016, 19.10.2016, 02.11.2016, 16.11.2016, 30.11.2016, 28.12.2016, 11.01.2017, 25.01.2017, 02.02.2017 & 15.02.2017. During proceedings, petitioner was examined for disability. Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/7 issued by the Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital opined that petitioner suffered 20% permanent disability in respect of his left upper limb (amputation). This condition is nonprogressive, not likely to improve. Reassessment is not recommended. Petitioner for claiming medical expenses relied upon medical bills (Ex. PW1/5 Colly.) amounting to Rs.580.6. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner suffered fracture injuries and amputation of index and middle finger of left upper limb, a sum of Rs.1,000/ is granted to the petitioner for medical expenses.
19. Compensation for Pain & Sufferings: Petitioner has suffered 20% permanent disability in respect of his left upper limb (amputation), therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and trauma of accident, a sum of Rs.15,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
20. Loss of Amenities and enjoyment of Life: Petitioner suffered 20% permanent disability in respect of his left upper limb (amputation), this amputation will definitely hamper his daily activities and enjoyment in every walk of life. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/ is granted towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
21. Loss of income during treatment: PW1 Shri Aamir Khan has deposed that MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 7 of 17) he was working as Helper on truck bearing registration No. HR730011 and was earning Rs.12,000/ per month. However, PW1 Shri Aamir Khan has admitted during his crossexamination that he has not filed any income proof or any document pertaining to his employment. In such circumstances, monthly income of petitioner can be taken as per minimum wages for an unskilled workman as prevalent at the time of accident (11.09.2016) in Delhi, which was Rs.9,568/ per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner, it can be accepted that petitioner would have taken rest for about 04 months. Hence, the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.9,568/ X 04 = Rs.38,272/. Accordingly, petitioner is granted Rs.38,272/ towards loss of income during treatment.
22. Loss of earning capacity: As per Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1, date of birth of petitioner is 01.01.1995. Therefore, he was around 21 years at the time of accident i.e. 11.09.2016. It is natural that with the disability and injuries suffered by the petitioner, his earning capacity has been diminished. During proceedings, petitioner was examined for disability. Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/7 issued by the Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital opined that petitioner suffered 20% permanent disability in respect of his left upper limb (amputation). This condition is nonprogressive, not likely to improve. Reassessment is not recommended. In view of the judgment of Delhi High Court titled as "Laxmi Narain Vs. Trilochan Singh & Ors., FAO No. 289/99, dated 04.05.2009, Delhi", the total functional disability towards whole body is assessed around 10%.
23. Future prospects: Petitioner is not entitled for future prospects as income of petitioner is assessed on the basis of minimum wages (Judgments relied:
MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 8 of 17) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P SRTC Vs. Trilok Chandara (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 1 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 has held that in the case of selfemployed or those on a fixed salary, the element of future prospects cannot be factored in. These judgments have been referred to in the case of Ram Dayal & Anr. Vs. Ram Nibash & Ors. MAC Application No.1012/2015 decided on 21.01.2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and held that in the case of Minimum Wages, no future prospects can be granted).
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011(1) SCC 343, mandated multiplier method for calculation of compensation for future loss of earning capacity which is as follows:
(a) Annual income= Rs.1,14,816/ (Rs.9,568/ X 12).
(b) loss of future earning per annum (Rs.1,14,816/ X 10%) = Rs.11,481.6.
(c) Petitioner is found to be around 21 years of age at the time of accident, Therefore, applicable multiplier as per Sarla Verma Case is 18.
(d) Loss of future earnings = Rs.11,481.6 X 18 = Rs.2,06,668.8 (rounded off to Rs.2,06,670/).
Thus, a sum of Rs.2,06,670/ is granted towards loss of future income.
25. Attendant Charges, Special Diet and Conveyance Charges: Petitioner has not filed any documents for proving the expenses incurred by him on attendant, special diet and conveyance. However, keeping in mind the injuries suffered by petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,000/ each is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges. Thus, total sum of MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 9 of 17) Rs.15,000/ is granted under this head.
26. Disfigurement: Petitioner suffered disability which causes disfigurement of the body, therefore a sum of Rs.10,000/ is granted to him towards disfigurement.
27. The total compensation is assessed for injured as under: 1 Compensation for medical expenses Rs.1,000/ 2 Compensation for pain & suffering Rs.15,000/ Compensation for attendant charges, special Rs.15,000/ 3 diet & conveyance 4 Loss of future earning capacity /future income Rs.2,06,670/ Compensation for loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/ 5 enjoyment of life 6 Compensation for disfigurement Rs.10,000/ 7 Loss of income during treatment Rs.38,272/ Total Rs.2,95,942/
28. Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.2,95,942/ (Rs. Two Lac Ninety Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two Only).
Relief:
29. The petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.2,95,942/ (Rs. Two Lac Ninety Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two Only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present DAR, till the date of realization of the amount in favour of petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
30. Counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has argued that MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 10 of 17) 'excavator L&T Komatsu PC 200' is a machine used for excavation and for the same reason Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to petitioner against his claim under Motor Vehicle Act. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 has argued that abovesaid excavator is not stationary, but it is a moving one and it is used/ plied on road also. Though counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has taken a defence that vehicle in question is not a motorized vehicle, but Insurance Company has not taken any defence at the time of filing of reply to DAR. Even, legal offer has been filed by Insurance Company since there was no statutory defence. Further, Section 2 (28) of Motor Vehicle Act has defined 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' as any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less then four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding (twentyfive cubic centimetres). In the present case, offending excavator is a mechanically propelled vehicle which can move and can be plied on road also. Hence, offending excavator is a 'motor vehicle' which was duly insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company at the time of accident. Respondent No. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle at the time of accident, is directed to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Release of awarded amount:
31. A sum of Rs.2,95,942/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 11 of 17) the petitioner. Out of this amount, Rs.95,942/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to the petitioner on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 50,000/ for period of 1 year.
2. Rs. 50,000/ for period of 2 years.
3. Rs. 50,000/ for period of 3 years.
4. Rs. 50,000/ for period of 4 years.
32. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
33. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
34. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC. App.135/2008" as well as in another case titled as "Union of India Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
35. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit/ savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 12 of 17) petitioner. Within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
36. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "Fixed deposit/saving account" in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimant/ petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant/ petitioner to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimant/ petitioner without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimant/ petitioner alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimant/ petitioner at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
(viii) On the request of claimant/ petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to his convenience.
(ix) Claimant/ petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 13 of 17) Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
Directions for the respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
37. The Respondent No. 3 will intimate to the claimant/ petitioner about it having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
38. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance and copy be also sent to DLSA, SE and Ld. MM concerned.
39. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 11.09.2016.
2 Date of intimation of the accident 08.10.2016 (FIR was got by the Investigating Officer to the registered on 07.10.2016). Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident 06.03.2017.
by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Not known.
Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 06.03.2017.
Information Report (DAR) by the MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 14 of 17) Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the 06.03.2017.
Insurance Company.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 06.03.2017.
claimant(s).
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes.
respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the Not applicable.
DAR?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes.
documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or There was delay in filing of
deficiency on the part of the DAR. IO filed various
Investigating Officer? If so, applications for extension of
whether any action/ direction time in filing of DAR. No
warranted? action was warranted.
12 Date of appointment of the Not available.
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company.
13 Name, address and contact Not available.
number of the Designated Officer
of the Insurance Company.
14 Whether the Designated Officer of Report was not submitted
the Insurance Company submitted within 30 days of filing of
his report within 30 days of the DAR as medical bills,
DAR? discharge summary etc.
were supplied to counsel for
Insurance Company only on
11.04.2017 and legal offer
was filed on the next date of
hearing i.e. 01.05.2017.
15 Whether the Insurance Company Insurance Company
admitted the liability? If so, admitted liability.
whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly
MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 15 of 17)
computed the compensation in
accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or Report of Designated
deficiency on the part of the Officer of Insurance
Designated Officer of the Company was not submitted
Insurance Company? If so, within 30 days of filing of
whether any action/direction DAR, but it was due to the
fact that medical bills,
warranted?.
discharge summary etc.
were supplied to counsel for
Insurance Company only on
11.04.2017 and legal offer
was filed on the next date of
hearing i.e. 01.05.2017. No
action was warranted.
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) 01.05.2017.
to the offer of the Insurance
Company.
18 Date of the award. 08.05.2017.
19 Whether the award was passed No.
with the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined Petitioner was examined at
at the time of passing of the award the stage of PE and his
to ascertain his/their financial financial condition was
condition? asked and according to his
financial condition and age,
award amount is directed to
be kept in the form of FDRs.
21 Whether the photographs, Photo ICard and other
specimen signatures, proof of requisite information was
residence and particulars of bank already on record. account of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the Part award amount is award amount to the claimant(s). released and rest is ordered to be kept in the form of FDRs.
MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 16 of 17) 23 Next Date for compliance of the 04.07.2017.
award.
Announced in open Court Dated:08.05.2017 (Madhu Jain) POMACT02/(South East District) Saket, New Delhi/08.05.2017 MACT No. 287/17 Aamir Khan Vs. Gulshan & Ors. (Pg 17 of 17)